accelerating the mainstreaming of climate change in...
TRANSCRIPT
Accelerating the Mainstreaming of Climate Change in National Policy
Development using Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Processes
An NGO Forum on ADB Initiative
Study of the Sipat Thermal Power Plant, Chattisgarh, India
EIA Resource and Response Centre
Environics Trust
New Delhi
2
CONTENTS
DA Utv~zÜÉâÇw F
EA cÉãxÜ fxvàÉÜ |Ç \Çw|t I
FA f|Ñtà cÜÉ}xvà K
GA VâÜÜxÇà \ÅÑtvà mÉÇx DC
HA W|ÅxÇá|ÉÇá Éy \ÅÑtvà DE
IA VÄ|Åtàx V{tÇzx \ÅÑÄ|vtà|ÉÇá DG
JA ftyxzâtÜwá TÑÑÜt|átÄ DI
KA \ÇyxÜxÇvxá EF
LA jtç T{xtw EG
3
1. Background
Climate change is today regarded as an urgent issue to be dealt at the international,
national and local levels. India has also recognized the need to take urgent measures to
deal with the issue and several efforts in developing technologies and market
mechanisms are ongoing.
However, climate change concerns are rarely if not ever considered in the
environmental decision making process especially during the process of evaluating and
grant of approval to range of projects. On a average over a year 800 projects related to
mining, power projects and other infrastructure projects are approved by the Ministry
of Environment and Forests and in none of the approvals are climate concerns even find
a mention. Therefore there is not much to say anything about mitigation.
This assumes significance in view of India’s path to achieve a high growth rate is heavily
dependent on use of fossil fuels. This will be dependent on development and expansion
of extractive industries. Patently Climate ‘unfriendly’ projects in the form of coal and gas
fired thermal power plants exponentially increasing emissions the ever expanding coal,
bauxite and iron ore mining into the forest rich and last remaining forests of the
Western Ghats, central and eastern India virtually undermines all other national efforts
in sequestration. Valuable natural forests have been lost (over 25,000 Sq Km of dense
forest in last two years FSI report of 2005) due to hydropower projects as well as
mining.
The project aims at mainstreaming climate change concerns in environmental decision-
making process in India by focusing on the Environmental Impact Assessment process
(and soon to be implemented Social Impact Assessment process). The EIA process is
being focused in view of the following reasons:
• The EIA is a mandatory procedure for a range of activities in order to assess in
advance the environmental and social impact of a proposed project and
therefore intended to guide the decision makers to make an objective decision.
• The EIA consultant is required to incorporate the real impact of the project.
Unfortunately, an honest assessment rarely takes place and climate concerns
and especially how the project will led to emission of Green House Gases and
contribute to climate change are never accounted for.
• The EIA process allows concerned citizens, communities and others concerned
groups to raise issues of concern at the time of public hearing;
4
• Faulty approvals can be challenged before authorities such as the National
Environmental Appellate Authority and therefore a judicial forum exists for
redressal of grievances.
• A National Green Tribunal Act has been passed by the Parliament and
notification of establishment has been issued.
The Sipat Thermal Power Plant partly financed by the Asian Development Bank is chosen
as an example. The Sipat Thermal Power project is particularly important as it was a
part of the first loan syndication deal for an Indian Corporate under the Asian
Development Bank’s Complementary Finance Scheme and is a Multitanche Financing
Facility1. This is a new instrument of the Bank wherein a Loan agreement of US $ 300
Million (approximately Rs 13.15 Billion) drawn with the Corporate – National Thermal
Power Corporation. Since ADB’s finance scheme directly benefits a corporate, the
sovereign immunity of the Bank’s action would not be applicable. This provides a
window for redressal of grievances and to set right the record and ensure that
environmental, social and climate safeguards are actually in place and delivering the
commensurate benefits to the affected communities. The following specific tasks that
have been undertaken are:
1. Mapping the Current Impact Zone
The project has acquired certain amount of land but the impact zone is much wider
depending upon the actual situation of ground level concentrations of pollutants in the
region and other socio-economic linkages. This exercise was essential in order to scope
and quantify the impacts.
2. Evaluating the dimensions of impact
There are various elements of the project impacting the community and the
environment in various dimensions. These have to be identified and scale and quantum
of impacts have to be evaluated.
3. Elaboration of Climate Change Implications
Climate impacts are often not directly visible and these need to be elaborate in order to
establish a basis and quantify the implications. Some parameters may not be
quantifiable and appropriate qualitative values have to be evolved.
4. Identifying Violations within the EIA regulations and guidelines
1 See Appendix I
5
In the study process we may come across several violations either of the law or the
guidelines which enhance the level of impact. These have to be identified and will form
the kernel of information for future follow-up as well as estimating the benefits of good
governance
.
5. Evaluating the Project within the ADB safeguard framework
The results of the analysis have to be compared with the safeguard norms to identify
areas of advocacy and input to the process of monitoring funds for Environmental and
Climate Compliance.
6
2. Power Sector in India
India has the fifth largest generation capacity in the world with an installed capacity of
152 GW as on 30 September 2009, which is about 4 percent of global power generation.
The top four countries, viz., US, Japan, China and Russia together consume about 49
percent of the total power generated globally. The average per capita consumption of
electricity in India is estimated to be 704 kWh during 2008-09. However, this is fairly low
when compared to that of some of the developed and emerging nations such US
(~15,000 kWh) and China (~1,800 kWh). The world average stands at 2,300 kWh. The
Indian government has set ambitious goals in the 11th plan for power sector owing to
which the power sector is poised for significant expansion. In order to provide
availability of over 1000 units of per capita electricity by year 2012, it has been
estimated that need-based capacity addition of more than 100,000 MW would be
required. This has resulted in massive addition plans being proposed in the sub-sectors
of Generation Transmission and Distribution2. Power Generation Sources - India
Source Installed Capacity (MW) Percentage
Coal 85,193.38 53.3
Gas 17,055.85 10.5
Oil 1,199.75 0.9
Total Thermal 103448.98 64.6
Hydro (Renewable) 36,913.40 24.7
Nuclear 4,560.00 2.9
RES** (MNRE) 16,429.42 7.7
Total 1,61,351.80 100
Renewable Energy Sources(RES) include SHP, BG, BP, U&I and Wind Energy.
The installed capacity figures are reconciled and indicates latest upration/deration capacity
Source: Central Electricity Authority as of 31.05.2010
Such an analysis and enhancement of power generation capacity has been challenged
by a number of professionals3 as merely adding generation capacity without looking at a
whole range of alternatives locks us into a highly polluting form of energy generation.
2 http://www.in.kpmg.com/TL_Files/Pictures/PowerSector_2010.pdf 3 See Shankar Sharma et al, Prayas Pune
7
Further the per capita availability does neither reflect upon the 42 per cent of the poor
households which do not have power nor address the inefficiencies within the current
system. Demand side management through choice of industrial technologies and
products and end-use efficiency improvements have been continuously neglected.
8
3. SIPAT Thermal Power Plant of NTPC
• Location – Sipat, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
• Coordinates of Plant Site - 22° 7'52.36"N, 82°17'30.59"E
• Stage I – 3*660 MW (1980 MW) using super critical technology
• Stage II – 2*500MW (1000 MW) using conventional boilers or sub critical
technology
• Techno-economic clearances were also provided by Central Electricity Authority
for Sipat in January 2000
• Environmental clearance for stage I granted on 13 January 1998 and stage II
granted 8 June 2004
• No objection certificate granted by the Chhattisgarh State Pollution Control
Board (SPCB) on 6 January 2004
• Villages – Rank, Devri, Kaudia, Janji, Sipat, Masturi & 2 others
• Project Affected Families – 3106
The Project site is located near Sipat village, Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh about 15 km
northeast of Bilaspur city and is reached via the Bilaspur–Baloda state highway, which passes
through Sipat. The site covers 1,773 ha (4,382 acres) and consists of the main plant and
9
switchyard (621 ha), ash dykes (632 ha), reservoirs and a township (256 ha), and a merry-go-
round5 (MGR) coal transport system (243 ha).
Construction of Sipat stages I and II began in late 2003 and substantial work has been
completed. Stage II (2 x 500 MW units) has been completed before stage I - the Second 500 MW
Unit of Stage-II, has been successfully coal fired 10-11-2008, after its synchronization, the
project has attained full capacity of 1000 MW under Stage-II. The first 500 MW Unit of Stage-II is
already under commercial operation since June 2008.
The ultimate approved capacity of the Sipat is 2980 MW which includes 3 Units of 660 MW
super critical boilers in Stage-I and 2 Units of 500 MW in Stage-II. All the 3 Units of 660 MW are
under various stages of implementation. The beneficiaries of this project are Western Region
States namely Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Daman & Diu and
Dadar Nagar Haveli.
The NTPC is
having disputes
with foreign
equipment
supply
contractors for
its Sipat-1 mega
power projects.
In an attempt
to revive its
1,980MW Sipat
project in
Chhattisgarh by
resolving a
contractual
dispute with
Russia’s Power
Machines,
state-run utility
NTPC Ltd plans to approach the Central Vigilance Commission, (CVC), seeking approval for
making additional payments as demanded by the Russian firm, which is seeking more time to
deliver the equipment and an upward revision in price to the tune of around Rs11 Billion4, citing
rising input costs.
4 http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/29211529/NTPC-ready-to-pay-more-for-Sip.html
10
4. Current Impact Zone
The impact area is beyond the plant site itself as it involves air and water regimes near the plant
site enlarging the Local Area of Impact. Further there are upstream impacts such as Coal Mining
Areas for Supply of Coal, Transportation of Coal through MGR, Hasdeo Dam Area providing
Water.
These elements are very difficult to quantify as they provide inputs to multiple downstream
activities, and apportioning impacts specific to the supply to Sipat could always be prone to
debate. However this most critical inference is that while individual projects must have detailed
environmental assessment in such regions it would be prudent to consider the synergistic
impact of all the projects and all elements of each project.
Mining: The coal for the plant
is to come from the Dipka
Mines near Korba. In order to
meet the expanded needs of
Sipat, an area of nearly 10 sq
km is being proposed for
mining in the Dipka mining
block in the process of is
expansion to 25 MT/Y. The
Mineable Reserves and
volume of Overburden
Removal is estimated as
617.00 M T and 615.00
Mcum. The life of the mine is
estimated to be 25 years.
Land Acquired for Dipka Block Mine Expansion
PARTICULARS AREA % OF TOTAL AREA
Forest area 18600 38.12
Irrigated Agricultural Land 545 1.12
Un irrigated Agricultural Land 20912 42.85
Culturable waste land 5084 10.42
Area not available for cultivation 3658 7.50
Total area 48799 100
Source: Pre-Feasibility Report
It is clear from the above table that nearly 80-90 percent of the land is productive and
intricately linked to the livelihoods of the local community.
11
120 MCM of water is to be abstracted from the Hasdeo Barrage, which is estimated to
provide irrigation atleast to 60000 ha of farm land. Given such a huge proportion of
unirrigated agricultural lands, this is indeed significant loss to the local communities. No
wonder that there is a growing dissension between the State Government and the
Company over the continued use of water from the Hasdeo Barrage.5
Air quality modelling using the industrial source complex version (ISCST3)” for
atmospheric dispersion of stack emissions was undertaken to assess the decline in air
quality from the combined stage I and II plant.
This modelling, run for the worst meteorological conditions for atmospheric dispersion,
predicted ground level concentrations (GLCs) of SPM, SO2 and NOx over a 20 km by 20
km area centred on the plant.
Thus if we add the areas impacted by the plant it would be over a thousand square
kilometres.
5 http://www.nerve.in/news:253500137094 In his letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the chief minister accused the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) for not taking not taking any step to provide employment to 3,106 project affected families, including 691 families that lost more than an acre of land.. 'It's most unfortunate that NTPC did not make any serious effort so far for offering jobs to displaced families that has created wide resentment among project oustees,' Raman Singh wrote 'Chhattisgarh can ensure water availability to Sipat project from Hasdeo Bango dam only for a temporary period of two-three years and the NTPC should use the time to lay pipeline to Mahanadi river from plant site that can easily feed water to the plant throughout the year,' the chief minister has written.
12
5. Dimensions of Impact
1. Land Acquisition
1173 hectares of land [35% for main plant and switchyard; 36% under ash dykes
indicates the waste proportion of 6.4 million tones/annum; 15% for reservoirs and
township; 14% for merry-go-around for coal transport from Dipika mines] acquired for
the project directly impacts 3106 families. About 35% of the land belonged to local
people with good agricultural potential. The proportion of land subject to industrial and
ancillary uses definitely takes away the direct land use practices and also inclines in
direction from productivity potential to pollution potential. We need to consider also
the impacts of land acquisition in the mining area. The number of affected land oustees
involved in the project is 3427. The number of families involved in the project is 3350
including approximately 1660 families in additional minetake area. Thus in all about
6000 – 7000 families are directly affected by mining.
One of the recent trends in land acquisition for mines and power plants in India has
been to exclude small areas exclusively used for settlements. Thus by excluding pockets,
the promoters claim that physical displacement has been avoided. However when all
livelihood sources have been taken away and the area made unfit for any cultivation it is
eventually forces people to migrate out of the area. It is unfortunate that the NTPC as a
public sector has also adopted such a mechanism for its acquisition.
2. Air and Water Pollution
The total coal consumption of the plant will be 2,122 t/hr (18.59 million t/annum). The
coal has a low gross calorific value of 3,300 Kcal/kg, a high ash content of 36-45%, and a
low sulfur content of about 0.36%. The total SO2 emissions from the plant will be 366.9
Village Area of village (in hectares)
Number of households
Total population Persons
Total population Males
Total population Females
SC Population Persons
ST Population Persons
I II III IV V VI VII
Janji 538 498 2,323 1,157 1,166 1,053 69
Rank 654 406 2,046 1,043 1,003 643 0
Kaudia 866 479 2559 1262 1297 264 282
Devri 488 371 1975 1021 954 885 21
Masturi 617 950 5033 2618 2415 1329 236
Sipat 1603 1197 6205 3206 2999 2804 313
Total 4766 3901 20,141 10,307 9,834 6,978 921 Source:
13
t/day (235.6 t/day for stage I, 131.3 t/day for stage II), 19 t/day or 5.5% higher than the
World Bank limit of 348 t/day calculated for this 2,980 MW plant.
14
6. Climate Footprint
Sipat STPP sources its coal from the Dipika Coalfields located 40 kms NE from the plant site and
water is sourced from Hasdeo Reservoir flowing southwards and would require 13400 KL water
per hour. Sipat STPP builds up on two technological aspects, one being 1000 MW (500 MW*2)
based on sub critical technology whereas the remaining 1980 MW (660MW*3) is based on super
critical technology which is expected to be more efficient than the former technology. As a rule
of thumb, the super critical technology (SCT) tends to enhance the efficiency by 0.69% to 1.64%
and is more tolerant to coal configuration changes or quality changes. It also tends to reduce the
emissions between 1.79% to 4.24% broadly. EDPC Japan suggested SCT for NTPC power
generation and suggested some key parameters.
NTPC’s Sipat thermal power plant (phase I) is built using super critical technology with each of
the three units of 660MW. The super critical technology tends to operate at a higher pressure
and temperature thereby improves the efficiency. NTPC is sourcing ‘F’ grade coal from Korba
Coalfields which has a high ash content of 35-46% and a calorific value of around 3300 kCal/Kg.
Even though the technological interventions could prove to bring down the carbon footprint to a
marginal lower level [improved efficiency] but it cannot address the issue of emissions unless
and until the linked elements like improved coal after processing in washery – which can provide
a low ash content coal – is factored into the overall budgeting of the project and climate
emissions accounted for. Also the Super Critical Technology pretends to be efficient but the coal
grades, which have high ash content, again lead to greater ash production, which in turn is toxic
in nature and indirectly should form part of the larger emission reduction strategy which is not
addressed comprehensively in the whole chain of product and by product cycle. Ash analysis of
Korba STPP indicates high percentage of silica [SiO2 – 61.30%] and [Al2O3 – 27.42 %].
Development financing by banks like ADB has always looked at limited ‘risks’ through its
safeguard policy but it has never taken responsibility of acknowledging in open that whether the
financer look at the larger responsibility of unforeseen but predictable impacts of climate
change and whether the investments are climate proof or tend to reduce the carbon footprint.
The changes in ambient environment of the region are likely to be more or less natural if
considered with ‘no project’ situation and need to be closely monitored as a 2980 MW thermal
power plant’s gas and particulate emissions are bound to change the environmental conditions.
By way of promoting the first super critical technology at Sipat which would mean more power
production [no cross comparison is provided on the differential emissions in case of power
generation from sub critical units, say six units of 500 MW each] and higher coal requirements
has a bearing on the region [as per CEA, the improvement in efficiency is of the order of 1.96%
at given boiler pressure and steam temperature] but there are no efforts in the Comprehensive
EIA document on the estimation of carbon emissions.
The ultimate total coal consumption of the plant is 2,122 t/hr (18.59 million t/annum).
Considering the emissions from Korba STPP which is also operated by NTPC [three units of
500MW and three units of 200 MW] the specific emissions arrived at by CEA in 2005-06 is 0.97
15
tCO2/MW. It is also noteworthy to state here that the operating heat rate of stations
deteriorated by 11.92% [read –11.92%] for the eastern region during an assessment carried out
by CEA for 2007-2008. Efficiency gain of approximately 2%6 is envisaged due to higher unit
proposed. As per CEA’s methodology of arriving at emissions, if we consider the average
emissions i.e. 0.81 tCO2/MWh the broad emissions from Sipat would amount to in the following
manner:
660MW * 7000 hours operation * 3 units = 13.86 million MWh
Using the emission factor as per Combined Margin7 = 0.80 tCO2/MWh
Total emission load = 0.80*13.86 = 11 million t CO2 per annum
500 MW * 7000 hours operation * 2 units = 7 million MWh
assuming the emission factor as per simple operating margin (OM) = 1 tCO2/MWh
Total emission load = 1*7 = 7 million t CO2 per annum
Gross total Emissions = 18 million t CO2 per annum
Estimates of 74400 tCOE/Millon8 Tonne of coal means about 1.5 Million Tonnes of emissions
from the coal mining for the plant at Dipika Mines. Another factor which contributes to GHG is
methane from coal mining and post mining gas emissions for which the emission factors have
been suggested by IPCC (2006) report depending on the depth of mine, the emission factors
range from 10m3 – 25 m3/tonne of coal production. Estimating for the 20 Million Tonnes of Coal
at the lower end works out to 2.86 tCOE9.
Thus the total emission from the mine and the thermal power plant would be 18
Million + 1.5 Million + 2.86 Million = 22.36 Million Tonnes of CO2.
Green belt development around the plant boundary is a failure as only sparsely grown trees are
visible depicting the counter impact measures suggested by the proponent in the EIA report.
6 Table 3 – Efficiency Improvement for higher parameters, page 18 - Committee To Recommend The Next Higher Unit Size For Coal Fired Thermal Power Stations 7 Weighted average of the simple operating margin and the build margin 8 http://www.oricaminingservices.com/Section.aspx?SectionID=290&CultureID=3 9 www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ogj_article110707.pdf
16
7. Safeguards Assessment
• ADB’s financing10 is being applied to the first super critical technology project
being implemented in India. With 3106 PAFs due to the construction of Sipat
STTP and 691 families loosing more than 1 acre of land, the efforts required
careful physical, economic and social rehabilitation. Even when no homestead
land is acquired, the socio economic rehabilitation becomes prime as in the rural
set-up farm land economics work closely with the homestead land and attains
significance in terms of security, social well being and community arrangements.
Employment assurance to 692 persons was given by the project authorities
which has failed miserably and points towards a very weakly drawn out policy
and lack of proactive measures required during the project cycle. Only 124 jobs
(18% of the total promised) have been provided till the last month and there is
no proactive information dissemination to the villagers on the remaining persons
eligible for jobs. In anticipation that each member of the affected family would
get employment has left people confused as the timeline to take decision over
this issue has overrun time and again and there has been no definite decision
taken up by the management of the company. As a result, people have not been
able to take up any gainful employment opportunity either.
Land was acquired11 under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 whereas the NTPC policy
itself states negotiations12 as the preferable route. It is no surprise that the ‘market
valuation’ under the LA Act does not factor the prevailing market price of land and
thereby forcing people to file cases for enhanced compensation which has multiple
implications. Gauchar lands have been acquired by NTPC along the highway passing
through Sipat Village, which again poses question of rights of people in the gauchar land
and post facto situation of FRA 2006.
• VDAC which is formed as per the NTPC policy has been formed of people
nominated by people in the villages like the head of village, farmers loosing large
chunks of land etc. VDAC meetings are quite irregular and follow up actions are
not shared with the villagers. District administration and NTPC have an interface
but the villagers complain of not sharing of decisions and the follow up action to
be taken for the affected.
10 The proposed ADB loan exposure of $75 million to NTPC will be ADB’s 19th nonsovereign investment
in India, and the first loan to a state-owned enterprise in India without sovereign guarantee under the Pilot Financing Instruments and Modalities 11 Land acquisition of 1,510 hectares was completed between 1997 and 1999, 55% of which was barren
Government-owned land. The land required (243 hectares) for the coal transport system was acquired in 2003 and 2004. 12 whereas as an essential safeguard, negotiated settlement is listed as one of the elements of ‘involuntary resettlement’ safeguard policy
17
• Public Information Centre is meant for promoting transparency and informed
decision making as per the NTPC policy. The PIC is located near NTPC plant
whereas the distance of villages from this PIC is almost 5-6 kms with no public
transport available. There is no substantial pro-active disclosure on the pending
promises and future actions to the affected.
Safeguard
Element
Brief Details of Tasks and
Requirement
Actual Practice
ENVIRONMENT
Proper
Environmental
Assessment
Identify potential direct, indirect,
cumulative and induced
environmental impacts and
determine their significance and
scope, in consultation with
stakeholders, including affected
people and concerned NGOs [EIA
report]
The information must be current and
accurate description of the project
and its impacts. The baseline must
contain environmental and social
information s well a on the
Occupational Health and Safety
aspects.
Cumulative Impacts of the Project
and the Region needs to be
Neither all the direct impacts nor the
indirect impacts have been assessed.
The ADB’s EIA statement is much
generalised without any meaning to the
specific communities affected and is
extremely poor in quality even as
compared with the EIA report by the EIA
consultant.
No public hearing was held for stage I as
it was not a Government of India
requirement at the time of project
clearance. [EIA notification 1994]. There
has been no consultation with the
stakeholders during the expansion and
the unfortunate trick played on the
communities has been the so-called
public hearing was a meeting of the
member who are state panel members.
The information is inaccurate as it goes
by the census figures instead of
undertaking a census of the people to
be affected on the day of acquisition.
No Health Impact Assessment has been
undertaken.
ADB is assuming that the mine and the
mine are different because of the
different corporate entities involved.
However considering the fact that
18
Safeguard
Element
Brief Details of Tasks and
Requirement
Actual Practice
addressed.
Air pollution including GHGs
Disadvantaged Communities
around 19 MTPA of coal has to come
from a mine which can produce
25MTPA the Dipka Coal Mines are
almost captive to this plant.
While some information is provided on
air pollution the GHG emissions and
carbon foot printing has not
undertaken. Simply by stating super
critical technology will automatically
reduce does not obviate the need to
look into the quality of coal which is
going to high almost 50% filled with ash.
The attempt is clearly to predict that it
would be within acceptable limits.
Since it has not conducted any census
the system does not have any
information about disadvantaged
communities such as women, disabled,
children, elderly, Scheduled Castes and
Tribes
Similarly it does not inform about the
impacts to the farmers from whose
quota the 120MCM of water is going to
be diverted fro Hasdeo-Banga Barrage.
Environment
Planning &
Management
Monetary compensation in lieu of
offset is acceptable in exceptional
circumstances, provided that
compensation is used to provide
Environmental Benefits of the same
nature and is commensurate with
projects residual impact.
At times, a third party’s involvement
will influence implementation of the
EMP. A third party may be, inter alia,
a government agency, a contractor,
or an operator of an associated
facility. When the third-party risk is
high and the borrower/client has
control or influence over the actions
and behavior of the third party, the
borrower/client will collaborate with
the third party to achieve the
There is no attempt at all either to
compensate them or to ensure that the
environmental benefits of the same
nature accrues to the people.
19
Safeguard
Element
Brief Details of Tasks and
Requirement
Actual Practice
outcome consistent with the
requirements for the
borrower/client. Specific actions will
be determined on a case-by-case
basis.
Information
Disclosure
The borrower/client will submit to
ADB the following documents for
disclosure on ADB’s website:
A full draft EIA
Final EIA
Environmental Monitoring Reports.
Probably the plea is taken that neither
Prevailing Public Communications Policy
(PCP) nor safeguard policies of ADB
during the time did not require posting
of such EIAs on the web, only to be
made available on request.
Consultation &
Participation
Meaningful Consultation: (basically
FPIC)
Begins early in the project
preparation Stage and is carried out
on an ongoing basis throughout the
project cycle—
Timely disclosure of relevant and
adequate information. Which is
understandable and readily
accessible to affected people (PIC) –
No intimidation [check the FIR
against 2 people on trespassing] –
Gender inclusive and tailored to the
needs of vulnerable
[disadvantaged]—
No meaningful consultation has ever
taken place. Stage II public hearing
which was held on 23.12.2003, only
three village representatives were
present as per SEIA document. The
authorities outnumbered them as other
7 representatives from state
government departments.
GRM Affected people will be appropriately
informed about the mechanism
Whether same as KOL
Grievances of the people even those
who were promised jobs have not be
adequately addressed.
Monitoring &
Reporting
EMP progress/implementation
Any NGO involved
Any reflections to improve or suggest
corrective action plan
Monitoring reports – at least semi
annual reports during construction
and annual basis during operation
No institution seems to be involved as
the villagers are not aware of any
institution supporting the
implementation of the environmental
management plan.
Unanticipated
Environmental
Impacts
Whether any such impacts
mentioned in EIA
Impacts likely to be caused by the ash
pond from which during summer
months heavy dust loads are in the
atmosphere
Impacts on People whose water is being
diverted where not
Biodiversity
Conservation
and Natural
Identify major threats to biodiversity
Modified habitats/natural habitats
(conditional/whether alternatives
20
Safeguard
Element
Brief Details of Tasks and
Requirement
Actual Practice
Resource
Management
Considered)/Critical habitats/legally
protected areas etc.
Pollution
Prevention &
Abatement
GHGs (others also) The technology per se does not reflect
the final pollutants completely, the
housekeeping is poor and local people
complain of enormous dust from the
ash pond during summer months
Health &
Safety
OHS
Community health & Safety
There is no visible effort outside the
plant site.
Physical and
Cultural
Resources
Whether any such resources were
impacted due to siting of project at
this location
Whether any consultation took place
on this & any mitigation measures13
There is no assessment reflecting the
existence or effort.
INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT
Compensation,
Assistance and
Benefits for
Displaced
Persons
How/whether people of different
categories have been/ are left out?
The company acquires agricultural and
grazing lands for the plant excluding
their homestead and thus claiming no
displacement. This makes it easier for
the company to get away from any
attempt to address issues of
resettlement. On the contrary, the
agricultural lands so acquired have
impacted their livelihoods and socio-
cultural fabric of the society.
Social Impact
Assessments
Whether the cut-off date given by
govt. / borrower?
Inventory details in this report?
Disadvantaged groups – targeted
measures
A large part of the affected are not even
considered, an example being the
farmers whose water is diverted for the
plant.
Resettlement
Planning
Base on SIA
Meaningful consultation with
affected persons
Three essential things to figure out:
i) informed abt. Their options &
entitlements pertaining to comp.,
relocation & rehabilitation
ii) consulted on resettlement options
& choices
iii) provided with resettlement
alternatives
No sincere dialogue let alone
meaningful or any consultation on poat
acquisition future of those families
13 Point 49 of safeguards always provide the proponent or borrower to remove any physical
cultural resources which might have more value than mere economic value
21
Safeguard
Element
Brief Details of Tasks and
Requirement
Actual Practice
To ensure timely availability of
required resources, land acquisition
and resettlement costs may be
considered for inclusion in ADB
financing [interesting would be to
know whether such safeguards work
on ground]
Negotiated LA Safeguard Requirement 2 doesn’t
apply to negotiated settlements
Meaningful consultation [engage
external party to document the
negotiation and settlement
processes]
Land Acquisition Act used for securing
land
Information
Disclosure
Draft RP endorsed by borrower/client
before project appraisal
Final RP after census of affected
persons is complete
New RP, during implementation (if
any)
RP monitoring reports
Not required under the presented
circumstances
Consultation &
Participation
Meaningful consultation used time
and again!!!!!
Host communities/civil
society/gender
inclusion/disadvantaged groups
Totally Ignored in the Process
GRM Whether different from one in
Environment SP
Monitoring &
Reporting
Of RP
Essentials: external experts to advise
on safeguard compliance issues,
corrective action plan. Semiannual
monitoring reports.
Unanticipated
Impacts
If found conduct SIA and update RP
Special
considerations
for indigenous
peoples
Any indigenous people displaced
If avoidance is impossible, in
consultation with ADB, a combined
Indigenous Peoples plan and
resettlement plan could be
formulated to address both
involuntary resettlement and
Indigenous Peoples issues. Such a
combined plan will also meet all
22
Safeguard
Element
Brief Details of Tasks and
Requirement
Actual Practice
relevant requirements specified
under Safeguard Requirements 3.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
Consultation &
Participation
23
8. Inferences
1. ADB has sought to overlook a variety of aspects probably as the fund is supposedly for
specific activity and perhaps knowingly avoids taking responsibility for the
environmental and social impacts of the project.
2. The project authorities by excluding only the homesteads have maintained that there is
no displacement and hence many of the safeguard features become inapplicable. ADB
has been oblivious to this immense dishonesty.
3. ADB has not even provided a semblance of opportunity to the local communities to
participate in any of the decision making processes leading to the grant of the loan. By
listing the panel members as the participants in a project that affects people across a
huge region, the ADB has clearly demonstrated the hallowness of its safeguard policies
in action. 4. ADB remains silent on issues of communities who were promised employment in lieu of
land acquired from them. Their grievances are not heard despite several attempts by
the local communities.
5. ADB has fallen prey to looking at the project narrowly from a warped Power Sector
development perspective, rather than of a Bank willing to lead Environmental, Economic
and Social Stewardship which should be the real basis for a Multilateral Bank.
24
9. Way Ahead…
The study has revealed that there are several aspects on which the Asian Development Bank
needs to clarify to the community.
We propose that at the following activities may be considered for follow-up action:
At the level of the project
1. We take these findings back to the Community and draw up a charter of
demands based on the ADB safeguards in close consultation with the
communities.
2. We enable a local workshop bringing together people from the mine site, dam
site and other affected by transport lines etc and explore further actions at the
local and regional level.
At the level of ADB involvement in Power Sector
3. Seek immediate response on the specific issues raised in this report.
4. We compile the details of the projects and the Sector level perspectives for their
future entry must be clarified
5. A strong demand on reviewing the Environmental and Social due diligence of
the projects funded.
6. Demand a critical assessment of its carbon footprint and means to mitigate the
impacts
At the National Level
7. Prepare ground for challenging the environmental compliance at the Green
Tribunal
8. Demand the assessment of carbon footprint as a part of the EIA document.
25
Environics Trust is a not for profit research and community development
organisation and an enabling institution. Environics conducts participatory
research on issues of environment and human behavior and uses these outcomes
for innovative community development programmes. Environics anchors several
networks and partnerships and is currently the Secretariat for The Access Initiative Coalition (TAI)
and the Occupational and Environmental Health Network of India (OEHNI). Environics is a co-
founder and promoter of the mines minerals and PEOPLE alliance (mm&P), the Indian Network
on Ethics and Climate Change (INECC), the EIA Resource and Response Centre (eRc).
Environics promotes and mentors environmentally sound enterprises and among these is the
Biodiversity Conservation India Limited (BCIL), the largest Sustainable Built environment
enterprise in India. Environics provides research and evaluatory services to International,
National, State and Local Institutions and directly works with marginalised communities such as
those in the mountain regions, tribals and communities adversely affected by mining and
industrialisation. Environics is an observer member of UNFCCC; Founder Members of the
Editorial Board of the worlds largest community and mining portal
www.minesandcommunities.org and a member of the Asian TNC Research Network
www.environicsindia.in www.mmpindia.org www.ercindia.org www.oehni.in
www.inecc.in www.ecobcil.com www.theaccessinitiative.org
33 – B Third Floor Saidullajab, M-B Road, New Delhi – 110030
Telefax – 91-11-29531814
Field Stations
Dehradun, Uttarakhand; Shimla, Himachal Pradesh; Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir;
Vyara, Gujarat; Panna, Madhya Pradesh